IXR Charting & T/A, page-531

Agree. I have seen both. Sometimes companies ask the ASX for review beforehand, and sometimes companies lob their announcements on the ASX and are later asked to explain or amend.

In some instances I have seen the regulator force a company to retract the announcement on their study. There are various instances of this happening, with the shareholders being irate and finger-pointing that management messed up.

We all need to remember that, in this situation, the ASX are in charge. What if they decided to throw a few pineapples at the company, resulting it a trading suspension? I can imagine how irate shareholders would be if the stock was held up in suspension for months until a revised study with more drilling could be prepared? I don't know the answer, but I figure the company actually did run this past the ASX beforehand to prevent a proper mess.

I am frustrated that more inferred resources weren't allowed in the SS, which I understand to be the case. I have done some research on this and have found that other companies have gotten away with using an even greater proportion of inferred resources in their SS. I even looked up the ASX guidance note on scoping studies and I still can't see why a greater proportion of inferred resources wasn't allowed. But my opinion doesn't really matter, because opinions are like a$$holes and mine isn't qualified in this area.

What I think is important is for the company to review its steps going forward, in the light of identifying parts where a regulator could take a different view or objection, and taking appropriate measures to addressing them early. All in my opinion.